Sudesh and Others vs Harmal Singh and Others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The appellants are the daughters of deceased Shakuntla Devi. They had filed a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- pertaining to an accident that took place on 1.10.1987 at 9.00 A.M. near Jandli bridge. It had been alleged that on 1.10.1987, Surinder Kumar was driving the scooter and was proceeding from Ambala City to Ambala Cantt. Shakuntla Devi was the pillion rider. When the scooter was getting down from Jandli bridge, a truck bearing No. PAN 8703 came from Delhi side. It was being driver rashly and negligently. It struck against the scooter. As a result of the impact, Shakuntla Devi fell down and was run over by the rear wheel of the truck. She was even dragged for about 15 paces and died at the spot. The driver of the truck ran away from the spot. The appellant claimed that at the time of her death. Shakuntla Devi was earning Rs. 1200/- per month by doing tailoring and cutting work.

Notice had been issued. Respondent No. 4 and 5 did not contest the claim. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in their separate written statements contested the claim petition mainly on the ground that it was the scooterist who was responsible for the death of the pillion rider. He had abruptly come from Jandli bridge without caring for the oncoming traffic on the Shershah Suri Marg. The truck was stated to be driven at normal speed. The Insurance Company, respondent No. 3, in its written statement had asserted that the driver of the truck was not having a valid driving licence. The truck was being driven without having rout permit.

Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving the truck driver Harmal Singh. There was no contributory negligence that can be attributed to Surinder Kumar, scooter driver. As regards the question about the payment of compensation, it was held that the petitioners could claim compensation. The deceased was about 5O years of age and was earning about Rs.550/- to Rs.600/- per month by stitching clothes and knitting woollens. The learned Tribunal further assessed the loss to the petitioner at Rs.300/-per month. Applying the multiplier of 12, compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs.43,200/-.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-claimants have filed the present appeal. None appeared on behalf of respondents. Therefore, this Court did not have the advantage of hearing respondents'' counsel. The short controversy raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was pertaining to the amount of compensation awarded. Though he does not dispute the multiplier of 12, but agreed that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was in error in assessing the loss to the appellants at Rs. 300/- per month.

As the position stands, the monthly income of Smt. Shakuntla Devi had been assessed at Rs. 550/- to Rs. 600/- per month. She was stitching clothes and knitting woolens. The appellants are the three daughters of the deceased. Keeping in view of the same, it is obvious that after deducting the personal expenses of the deceased it must be taken and held that she was contributing Rs. 400/- per month to the appellants. The Tribunal was patently in error in deducting almost half of her monthly income and thereafter assessing the damages. Keeping in view the above findings, the compensation that the appellants are entitled to would be Rs. 57,600/-. The liability of the respondents would be joint and several. The appellants would be entitled to interests at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till actual payment is made.